Hollinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



3Tu 



WAITT & DOW, PRINTER. 



A LETTER. 



Reverend Sir : 

I have before me your sermon on the £ Supreme Divinity' of the 
Lord Jesus. I have seen this publication highly recommended in 
the orthodox journals, for which reason, I conclude, that it is a 
work of much effort, and probably the best that cajjj)e offered on 
your side of the question. The recommendation, with* which it 
has come before the public, gives it an importance wljich it other- 
wise might not possess. 

As I have recently reviewed another of your sermons, believing 
it a duty, which I owed the public, to correct error, so far as my 
feeble understanding would enable me, the same sense of duty urges 
this review. 

It is hoped you will not unkindly receive these notices of your 
labors, for 1 have the satisfaction of knowing that they are dictated 
by friendly motives, how much soever my views may differ from 
yours, and how pointedly soever the language may be in which I ad- 
dress you. 

I presume you are aware that Universalists were among the first 
who dared preach, publicly, in opposition to the Trinitarian faith, 
in America ; and that theirs are among the oldest American pub- 
lications which boldly deny that doctrine. 

We agree with you that the controversy, on this subject, must be 
decided by the question — ' What say the scriptures.' If I mistake 



4 



not, we agree, also, that reason must be employed in ascertaining 
what the scriptures do say. 

If I understand the scriptures, they require us to believe that 
* Jesus is the Christ ; ' but I know of no instance in which they re- 
quire us to believe that he is Supremely Divine. This, you 
may say, is taking ' broad ground? To be sure it is, but we deem 
it more easily defended than any ground more narrow. 

You will bear us record that the scriptures, to which we make 
our appeal, say nothing concerning the ' two-fold nature? which 
you attribute to the Lord Jesus, therefore, we are slow to believe 
that he possessed any such nature. We do believe, sincerely, that 
he was the Christ the Son of God, and that he was inferior to, 
and dependant on the Father. If this belief be wrong, we think 
our sincerity would plead much in our favor. Our hearts most 
fervently respond to the sentiment of the apostle — 1 To us there is 
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things.' 1 The glory 
which belongs to him, we are unwilling to give to another. 

We would not suppose that you lightly esteem sincerity, although 
on p. 4, ^ou Jppve stated that Saul of Tarsus could not have found 
an excuse for his persecutions on the score of his sincerity. You 
think that his sincerity would not have given him a passport to hea- 
ven. But were you not unfortunate, when in close connexion 
with this idea, you quoted his words, where he says — ' he obtained 
mercy because he did it ignorantly, in unbelief?' Saul was sin- 
cerely ignorant, and in unbelief, and for this very reason he obtain- 
ed mercy. Surely, his sincerity was a passport to divine mercy, 
if not to heaven. 

We may pass to p. 10, where you commence the labor of 
your sermon. You first define the word — Trinity. By it, you 
say, < We simply mean this, That Jehovah is tri-personal ; in other 
words, That there is one God, called Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' 
According to this definition, there is only one God, but he is call- 
ed by three names. The words, Trinity and tri-personal, relate to 
the three names, which the same being possesses. If the Father, 



1 1 Cor. viii, 6. 



Son, and Holy Ghost are all identified in one God, and cannot be 
separated— -when the Son was born of the virgin Mary, the Fath- 
er and Holy Ghost were born — when the Son was crucified, they, 
also, were crucified. But are they so separate, that the Son can 
do and suffer, what is not done and suffered by the Father and 
Holy Ghost ? it would then seem, that they are so separate that 
they cannot be identified in one being. 

On pp. 22 and 26, you contend that Jesus has a 4 two-fold, 
nature,' and that he is 4 both God and mart. 1 Still, if I under- 
stand you, this God and man are one being, the Supreme Deity. 
Then, if the man nature suffered and was crucified, part of the 
Supreme God thus suffered and was crucified. You illustrate 
this subject as follows : 4 We believe too, that the body and soul 
in man are united, or co-exist.' If this similitude be understood, 
you mean that the connexion, between the two-fold nature of God, 
or between the Father and the Son, is like the connexion be- 
tween the body and soul of man. 

If it take the Father and Son to make one Supreme Being, as 
it does a body and soul to make one man, are we not justified in 
saying that when the Son died on the cross, the Supreme God as 
much died, as did the two thieves who were executed with him ? 
The souls of these thieves, you believe, were immortal, of course 
they did not die ; so the Divine nature in God was immortal and 
did not die — but he died, so far as 1 am able to discover, as 
much as they did. Will you not shrink from a theory which thus 
threatens the character of the most high God ? You revolt from 
the idea that Jesus should be brought down to the standard of a 
man — but your own theory thus levels the Deity, himself. 

On p. 10, you say that the Bible, in the most unq,alified 
sense, calls Jesus Christ, God. Your first evidence is brought 
from Isaiah, where you say Jesus is called 4 The mighty God.' 
But does this passage, in the most unqualified sense, call Jesus 
Christ, God ? Let us read the passage carefully : 4 For unto 
us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government 
shall be upon his shoulders ; and his name shall be called Won- 
derful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the 



6 



Prince of Peace.' 1 You will notice that the being, who was to 
receive these high names, was both a child and a son, — he, there- 
fore, must have had a father and a mother. Whoever is intend- 
ed by this child and son, the sense in which he is called God, 
must be qualified. He was called, mighty — but not Almighty ; — 
an everlasting Father, and yet he must have had a Father. In 
the verse following, we are informed that £ the zeal of the Lord 
of Hosts will perform this ; ' i. e., all that is prophesied concerning 
this child and son. But it would be strangely confounding lan- 
guage, and shockingly outraging common sense, to pretend that* 
this child and son, with all the titles which he should recieve, was 
the Lord of Hosts, who was to fulfil all that was prophesied con- 
cerning him. 

The next evidence, which you bring, is found in the following : 
4 For thy Maker is thine husband ; the Lord of Hosts is his name : 
and thy Redeemer the holy One of Israel ; the God of the whole 
earth shall he be called.' 9 2 You only quoted what is here italicis- 
ed. How you can prove that the passage has the least reference 
to Christ Jesus, we are wholly unable to perceive. Is it the word 
Redeemer, which leads you to suppose that Jesus is intended ? 
But was not the eternal God a Redeemer, long before any such 
name was given to Jesus ? Was not the Almighty the Redeemer 
of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage ? As you have brought 
no evidence to prove that Jesus is intended by this passage, and 
as we cannot discover how it can apply to him, this notice of it 
must be sufficient. We believe that 1 the God of the whole earth' 
was a Redeemer, long before Jesus was born in Bethlehem of 
Judea. 

As your third evidence, you introduce the words of Thomas : 
i My Lord, and my God ! ' We think the circumstances attend- 
ing the utterance of these words, should lead us to receive them 
as an exclamation, expressing the surprise of the speaker. 

Thomas had doubted our Lord's resurrection, and had deter- 
mined that he would not believe it, until he could feel the wounds 
inflicted on the hands of Jesus, and thrust his hand into Jesus' 



1 Isaiah ix, 6. 



2 liv, 5. 



7 



side. This resolution had not long been formed, when our Lord 
appeared to this skeptical Thomas, and said to him : 4 Reach 
hither thy finger, and behold my hands ; reach hither thy hand 
and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing.' 

Here, the very evidence, which Thomas had required, is given. 
Without, doubt, it was unexpected — astonishment seems to have 
seized his soul, and almost to have choked his utterance ; he 
could only exclaim — 4 My Lord, and my God ! ' You quote these 
words twice more on p. 21, and say, Thomas did not exclaim 4 like 
a profane swearer.' You are right friend F., he did not exclaim 
like a profane swearer, but like a man astonished, and overcome 
by an unexpected discovery. It seems that you wish to have it 
understood, that Thomas was either a Trinitarian or a profane 
swearer. 

Bishop Pearce says, on this passage, 4 That Thomas calls Jesus 
his God, and that Jesus does not reprove him for it, though this 
was probably the first time he was so called.' To this we reply, 
that as Jesus did rebuke one, who called him 4 good master? we 
certainly believe he would have rebuked Thomas, for calling him 
God, had he so understood him. We, therefore, consider that this 
circumstance, alone, justifies the conclusion that our Lord regard- 
ed these words as an exclamation. 

You will notice that your opinion and the bishop's are at vari- 
ance ; he thinks Thomas was the first one who called Jesus God, 
—you think he was so called in the prophets. 

You next introduce part of two passages, one from the gospel, 
the other from the first epistle of John. You say that John tells 
us Jesus 4 was God,' even, 4 the true God, and eternal life.' The 
first passage reads thus : 4 In the beginning was the word, the 
word was with God, and the word was God.' 1 This says 
nothing about Jesus, it simply says — 4 The word was God.' 
The idea has been disputed by many learned men, that the 
word relates to Christ ; and you have not proved that it does 
relate to him. 

We can see no propriety in saying, the word was with God, if it 



1 St John i ? 1. 



was actually God himself. Have we not as much authority for say- 
ing, the word, means the wisdom of God, as you have for saying it 
means Christ Jesus? In the beginning wisdom was with God. 
In wisdom he made all things. 1 Wisdom, personified, thus speaks 
— ' The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before 
his works of old.' 2 There can be no doubt that this wisdom, in 
which God made all things, and which was with him in the begin- 
ning of his way, was afterwards most luminously manifested in his 
Son. Hence, Paul says, that Christ of God is made unto us 
wisdom, he. 3 If this passage be true, that Jesus of God is made 
unto men wisdom, is it not very certain that what wisdom he em- 
ployed was delegated to him by his Father ? 

New co me is of opinion that, the word, does mean Jesus, and 
that he c is so called because God revealed himself, or his word by 
him.' Many others, who believe that Jesus is here intended, do 
not suppose that the design is to represent Jesus as identically and 
literally the supreme God, but that he was so bright and perfect an 
expression of the divine will, that it was not so much Jesus, as God 
himself, who appeared, and instructed mankind. His work was not 
his own but his Father's — he did not his own, but his Father's will, 
and so closely did he apply himself to the work assigned him, that it 
might with much propreity be said that those who saw him, saw 
the Father. He was the representative of God on earth. 

But as you, on p. 8, aver that you wish not to put a forced 
construction on a single passage, nor to violate the rules of grammar 
to obtain a meaning, we will leave you the task of showing, by what 
rules of grammer, logic, or correct interpretation, you can make 
out that Jesus was with God, and yet was God, himself, and had 
no one with him. 

You adduce these words as applying to Christ : £ This is the 
true God and eternal life J The whole passage follows : 4 And 
we know that the son of God is come, and hath given us an un- 
derstanding, that we may know him that is true ; and we are in 
him that is true, even in his son Jesus Christ. This is the true 



1 Ps. civ, 24. 2 Prov. viii, 22. 3 1 Cor. i, 30. 



9 



God, and eternal life.' Who is the true God ? A He that is true* 

HI 

Who is Jesus Christ? The Son of the true God. The passage 
certainly places Jesus in no higher relation ; and instead of favoring 
your doctrine, we consider it positive evidence against it. 

You next assert that Paul calls Christ — ' God over all, blessed 
forever.' Why did you wrongly quote this passage ? Paul is 
speaking of the Israelites, ' of whom, as concerning the flesh, 
Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.' 1 We are in- 
clined to the opinion that the word he, should be inserted before the. 
word 6 blessed.' Then the passage would simply say — God be 
blessed forever, because Christ came, and is over all. The pas- 
sage does not read that Christ is 4 God over all,' but Christ,, 
''who is over all.' Allowing the passage to stand exactly as it 
reads in our common version, it does not 6 call Jesus, the Supreme 
God, in the most unqualified sense.' The apostle, in this passage, 
calls Jesus an Israelite by birth, a descendant of the ancient fath- 
ers. Now, if he be called God, this, most surely must qualify the 
sense in which he is called so. Paul did not mean to be under- 
stood that the immutable, unbegotten, invisible, and infinite God 
was a Jew by birth. We know that the name, God, was fre- 
quently applied to men possessing great earthly authority, and if 
Paul called Jesus, God, was it not in a restricted sense ; meaning 
to express his exaltation to universal dominion by his Father, and 
not that he, a Jewish decendant, was the Supreme Deity ? We 
think, the question admits no doubt. 

This agrees with what our Lord himself said : ' The Father 
loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hands.' 2 When 
God had given all things to Christ, Christ was ' over all,' and 
not before. Paul, himself, informs us how he believes Christ 
came to be over all. He says that God put all things under his 
feet and ' gave him to be head over all things, to the church.' 3 
Observe — all the power and authority which Jesus had over all 
things, were given him by his Father. All things were not under 
him, till God put them there. He was not ' over all things,' till 



1 Rom. ix, 5. 
2 



2 John iii,35. 



3 Eph. i, 22. 



10 



God 1 gave him tQ be head.' If such language does not imply 
delegated power, we are not sure that language could imply it. 

The following passage you have quoted several times as pecu- 
liarly expressive of your theory : 4 God was manifest in the 
flesh.' 1 We can easily satisfy you on this. text, by citing the au- 
thority of your own commentator. On p. 30, you have intimated 
that a person who ' has any share of justice or even modesty,' 
would not denounce opinions advocated by 4 men so thoroughly 
and critically acquainted with the original Greek of the New- 
Testament as Griesback and Stuart.' Griesback does not allow 
that the word, 4 God,' in this passage, was written by the apostle, 
but believes that it has been inserted since his time, either by mis- 
take or design. We presume that you were unacquainted with this 
learned author's opinion, or justice and modesty would have pre- 
vented you from using the text as you have. We are sure that 
this passage will be flung out of the controversy by every learned 
and candid Trinitarian. 

From Jude you bring these words : 4 To the only wise God 
our Saviour, be glory,' &c. When you can prove that Jesus was 
intended in this address by the only wise God, the passage will 
be to your purpose, but not before. We have no disposition to 
deny that the only wise God is our Saviour, and that he saves us, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. He is the cause — Jesus is the 
instrument. 

We have gone through with all the passages in which you say, 
Jesus is called 4 God, in the most unqualified sense.' Our read- 
ers must judge in regard to the correctness of your statement, and 
which of us manifests an 4 inclination to put forced constructions' 
on the divine testimony. 

The next class of evidence on which you rely to prove the 
Deity of Christ, is those passages in which you suppose Jesus is 
called, Jehovah. To prove this you quote as follows from Jere- 
miah : 4 This is the name whereby he shall be called, Jehovah 
our righteousness.' Why did you quote only a part of the pas- 



1 Tim. 3, 16. 



11 



sage ? The whole passage reads thus : 4 Behold the days come 
saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, 
and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment 
and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and 
Israel shall dwell safely; and this is his name whereby he shall be 
called, The Lord our Righteousness. 1 1 Notice — these are the 
words of the Lord, he is speaking of a third person, of a righ- 
teous Branch, which he would raise up to David — of a King who 
in some future time, should reign and prosper. This Branch or 
King, was to have a name, and was to be called — 4 The Lord 
our righteousness.' Whoever this person might be, the Lord 
promised to raise him up ; from which expression we should 
conclude, that as yet, he did not exist. But, how could this re- 
late to the Supreme God ? Did any one ever raise him up ? 
Was he a Branch of David ? — Any one who will read this pas- 
sage candidly, must perceive that its author was speaking, not of 
himself, but of a third person, and that the whole force of the 
passage goes to convey the idea, that the person spoken of, was 
distinct from the person speaking. 

You quote a passage from Isaiah, as follows : — 4 I even I am Je- 
hovah, and besides me there is no Saviour.' If you can perceive 
how this passage proves the Deity of Christ, your power of per- 
ception is vastly greater than mine. If the passage prove any- 
thing in regard to Christ, it proves that as yet he did not exist ; 
Jehovah was the only Saviour — he had not raised up Jesus, who 
afterwards received that appellation. 

A passage in Zech. xii, 10, is next introduced. 4 And they 
shall look upon me whom they have pierced,' says Jehovah. I 
will acknowledge to you that Christ was the one pierced, but I 
am sure that the word 4 me,' in this passage, ought not to be used. 
This is manifest from what follows it. 4 And they shall look upon 
me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him? 
Mourn for whom ? For the one that was pierced, as no one else 
is mentioned, to whom it can refer. It is then evident, that the 



1 Jer. xxiii, 5, 6, 



12 



personal pronoun should, in both cases, be me, or in both, him. 
You correctly observe that ' John, in his gospel applies this pas- 
sage directly to Christ.' Then we will see how John quotes it — 
whether he uses the word me or 1dm. See John xix, 37 : 4 Again 
another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierc- 
ed.' This decides the matter. On the authority of John, we say 
him instead of me, should be used in the above passage ; then, Je- 
hovah there speaks of Jesus, who was pierced, and not of himself. 
You next introduce part of two verses from Isa. vi, 1, 5. You 
say — < I saw Jehovah,' says Isaiah, s sitting upon a throne, high 
and lifted up. Mine eyes have seen Jehovah of Hosts.' I am 
not pleased with the mutilated manner in which you have quoted 
this passage ; — but as it stands, how do you prove that it relates 
to Christ ? Justice to yourself, would have required better proof, 
than what you have given. You appeal to John, and tell us that 
' John says, " These things said Esaias, when he saw Chrisfs glory, 
and spake of him." 1 Christ, if John may be credited, is the very 
Jehovah of Hosts whom Isaiah saw.' Sir, have you not misrepre- 
sented John ? John uses the phrase, 1 his glory,' instead of 1 Chrisfs 
glory? as you quote the passage. Are you sure that his glory, 
and Chrisfs glory, would mean the same in this connexion. But 
supposing Esaias did say 1 these things' when he saw Chrisfs glo- 
ry, and that he saw Christ's glory, when he saw the Jehovah of 
Hosts, what would this prove ? Nothing more, than that the Je- 
hovah of Hosts, is the glory of Christ. We presume that all the 
glory, which rested on the head of our gracious Lord, was receiv- 
ed from the Father. God ' gave him glory.' 2 

We have come to where you attempt to prove the Deity of 
Christ, from passages in which you suppose divine attributes are 
ascribed to him. See Sermon, p. 11. You say John calls Jesus 
the ' Eternal life.' 3 We have noticed this passage before, and be- 
lieve we have clearly shown that you have misunderstood it. But 
admitting that Jesus has eternal life ; £ The gift of God is eternal 
life ; ' and how do you know he did not give it to Jesus ? God 



1 John xii, 41. 2 1 Peter i, 21. 3 1 John v, 20. 



13 



has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son — but you would 
not argue, that when we shall inherit this gift, we shall all be Su- 
preme Deities. If it will not make us supreme, why does it the 
Lord Jesus ? 

The passage which you bring from Micah, 1 will receive no fur- 
ther notice, until you show in what possible way you can apply it to 
the Lord Jesus. Have you read the three verses which follow it? 

Paul's words which you quote from Col. i, 17 : — I shall leave 
without comment, as I desire the reader to turn and read the 
whole chapter, which we think no candid person can believe, with- 
out rejecting the Trinitarian faith. It is very explicit in keeping 
up a clear distinction between the Supreme God and his Son, 

If you can percieve that our Lord's words prove his Deity when 
he says — 1 Behold I am alive forevermore,' you must have the 
credit of the discovery — nor do I blush to confess my total inabili- 
ty to see how the passage can be managed to prove such an idea. 

Because Christ said — ' I am the first and the last,' must we con- 
clude that he was the first being, who ever existed, and the last 
who shall exist when all the rest of the Universe is dead ? There 
are many things of which he might have been the first and the last, 
which would not prove his Divinity. 

You attribute Omniscience to Jesus, as proof of your doctrine. But 
the passages which you being to prove his Omniscience, no more 
prove it a fact, than the words of Paul prove that his Roman brethren 
were Omniscient. Paul said he was persuaded that they were 'fill- 
ed with all knowledge.'' 3 To his Corinthian brethren, he also said, 
that God, by Jesus Christ, had enriched them £ in all knowledge. ' 3 
Does the all knowledge, here mentioned, render the Romans and 
Corinthians Supreme Deities. But Christ actually disclaims Om- 
niscience, in plain words : ' But of that day, and that hour, know- 
eth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the 
Son, but the Father.' 4 Here Jesus very humbly confesses his 
ignorance concerning the time, in which a certian event should 
occur. To this effect much other evidence might be brought. 



1 Micah v, 2. 



2 Rom. xv, 14. 



3 1 Cor. i, 4, 5. 



4 Mark xiii, 32. 



14 



When knowledge is attributed to Jesus, it must be understood in a 
limited sense, as we understand it, when applied to his disciples. 

You next endeavor to prove his Omnipresence. But how do 
you succeed ? You bring one passage in which he says, 4 Where 
two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of 
them.' And again : ' Lo, I am with you always even unto the 
end of the world.' See p. 12. Now, sir, will you pretend that 
these passages, which are all you bring, prove the Omnipresence 
of Jesus ? Do you not believe that as much power is possessed 
by the devil as is here ascribed to Christ ? Do you not believe 
that he is sometimes where two or three are together, and that he is 
with some people to the end of the world ? But would you call him 
a Supreme Deity? Jesus speaks frequently of going — of going to 
his Father. We read of his being in one place, then in another 
— of his ascending to heaven where he was before. All such lan- 
guage is perfectly unintelligible, if Jesus be Omnipresent. Can 
an Omnipresent being go from one place to another ? go from and 
return to his Father ? Descend from heaven to earth, and as- 
cend from earth to heaven again ? But such language we find 
constantly applied to Jesus. 

You ascribe Immutability to Jesus. To prove this, you quote 
these words of Paul: 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, 
and forever.' 1 We would not dispute that in some respects Jesus 
is immutable. He is the immutable friend of man — the constant 
Son of God — persevering most faithfully in the work assigned him 
by bis Supreme Father, ' who is without variableness or shadow 
of turning.' But when we read of our Lord's weeping, groaning 
in spirit, giving up the ghost, resigning his mediatory power, &c, 
we cannot believe that he is, in the proper sense of the word, im- 
mutable. 

Perhaps you will say, that Christ's human nature was not om- 
niscient, omnipresent, immutable, he, but that these attributes be- 
longed to his divine nature. Still, you contend that in him 
there is an union between the human and the divine nature, but 



1 Heb. xiii,8. 



15 



have not informed us how human and divine attributes can be 
united. How can omniscience be united with ignorance — omni- 
presence with locality — immutability with that which is liable to 
change ? We can conceive of no such union. You may call it 
4 above reason ' — so you might call every absurd proposition, to 
which reason will not consent. When you talk concerning two 
natures infinitely apart, being united in one Being, you are obliged 
to use language unknown in the scriptures. You invent the idea, 
and the language too. What scripture language can you employ 
to express wbat you mean by — Trinity — Tri-personal — Two-fold 
nature — God and man, he. ? 

You endeavor to prove that Jesus was a preserver, and gover- 
nor ; which we do not dispute. But when he said that of himself 
he could do nothing, he could not have used plainer language to 
show that his power, in every station, was all borrowed. He might 
have possessed all the power which the scriptures attribute to him, 
and yet, have derived the whole, from his Father. 

Paul says ' I can do all things through Christ which 
strengtheneth me.' 1 So Christ could do all things through 
God who strengthened him ; but he plainly tells us that of himself 
he could do nothing — neither could Paul. This ability, to do all 
things, no more proves the Supreme Divinity of Christ, than it 
does that of Paul. Jesus says, 1 All power is given unto 
me in heaven and in earth.' 2 How did he come by this 
power ? He says it was given him. We do not dispute the pow- 
er of Jesus. All for which we contend is, that this power was 
given or delegated. The above passage, one would suppose, 
would forever settle the controversy among reasonable people. If 
all power was given Jesus, there must have been a time when he 
did not possess it, and there must have been some Lofty One, who 
did originally possess it, and who gave it to him. From this, the 
reader will readily perceive that our Trinitarian brethren may 
bring as many passages as they please, which imply power 
on the part of Jesus, but they do not prove his Deity ; because all 



1 Phil. 4, 13. 2 Matt, xxviii, 18. 



16 



his power, be it more or less, was given, or delegated power. 
Many passages which you have adduced are of this description; 
hence, they require no further notice in this review. 

On p. 12, you introduce an idea to prove the Deity of Christ, 
which we presume was original — we do not recollect to have seen 
it before ; but we think you will highly censure yourself for 
using it. You argue that Christ could not have forgiven sins 
had he not been the Supreme. These are your words : 'Is it 
the prerogative of God. to forgive sins ? We read that Christ said 
to the sick of the palsy, ' Son, be of good cheer thy sins be forgiv- 
en thee.' And to the weeping penitent who washed his feet with 
her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head, he said — 
'Thy sins are forgiven thee.' Does not the forgiveness of sins 
transcend the power delegated to the best of men? Did Moses, 
or Isaiah, or John, or Paul, ever attempt it ? And would not Ga- 
briel himself shrink with confusion from the presumptuous under- 
taking ? J Mark this, reader, Mr. F. calls it a ' presumptuous un- 
dertaking ' for Christ to forgive sins, if he were anything less than 
the Supreme God. He introduces this idea again on p. 15, 
and also, on p. 17. In the last place, these are his words : 
'/The Jews charged him (Christ) with blasphemy ; for said they, 
he blasphemeth ; who can forgive sins but God only ? ' And if 
Christ were a mere creature, was not the charge justly preferred 
against him ? ' Here, notice that Mr. F. joins with the Jews and 
contends if Jesus were a created being and not the Supreme God, 
he was justly charged with blasphemy ? 

We are sorry you could be so unguarded as to place yourself 
before the public in this unpleasant situation. You must regard 
yourself among the number addressed in Matt, ix, 4 — 8, inclusive. 
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said, wherefore think ye evil in 
your hearts ? For whether is easier to say, thy sins be forgiven 
thee ? or to say, arise and walk ? But that ye may know that the 
son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then he saith to 
the sick of the palsy,) arise, take up thy bed, and go into thine own 
house. And he arose and departed to his house. But when the 
multitude saw it they marvelled, and glorified God, which had 
given such power unto men.'' Here the evangelist says that ' God 



17 



had given such power unto men,' to forgive sins; and that the 
multitude saw it and marvelled, and glorified God, who gave such 
power. They did not accuse Jesus of blasphemy. But the 
Scribes and you, are of opinion that no such power was ever giv- 
en to any being less than God himself, and that any one less than 
Him, who pretends to forgive sins, blasphemes ; and that even Ga- 
briel would shrink from such a c presumptuous undertaking.' 

Had you remembered the Lord's prayer, we think you would 
not have considered it so very presumptuous for inferior beings to 
forgive sins. We would advise you to read Luke xvii, 3", 4 :— if 
you have not learned that men have power to forgive sins on earth. 
To convince you that Jesus had such power, we quote Acts v, 31 : 
' Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince, and 
a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.' 
Here we are expressly told that Jesus was exalted. By whom? 
By the right hand of God. For what ? One declared object of 
his exaltation was, that he might forgive sins. This shows most 
clearly that the power of Jesus to forgive sins, was delegated 
power. 

We have before observed, that you, in regard to the above, have 
adopted the idea of the opposing Scribes and Pharisees, and this 
is not the only instance in which you have joined with them against 
the truth. This you have done again on p. 21. Here are your 
words : • Does this look like disclaiming Supreme Divinity? Or 
does our Lord disclaim it when the Jews said to him, " For a good 
work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy ; because that thou be- 
ing a man, makest thyself God ; " and in another place, "Equal 
with God." What said Christ ? Why, he had asserted himself 
to be the Son of God. And what did the Jews understand him to 
mean by this assertion ? They tell us plainly that they under- 
stood him to declare that he was ' equal with God,' and 4 was God.' 
---Now if it was a mistake on the part of the Jews, was not 
Christ bound to remove it ? Had he been nothing more than a 
good and honest man, could he either have sacrificed his life, or 
suffered them to incur the guilt of taking it away, merely through 
a mistake of theirs ? — a mistake which one word from his lips 
would have corrected ? If then, Christ was not what the Jews 
3 



18 



understood him to declare himself to be, they were not guilty 
in putting him to death; for the law of God, as given by- 
Moses, required the blasphemer to be stoned.' So much from Mr 
Fairchild. You think if Jesus was not equal with Go J, and was 
not God, he was guilty of blasphemy, and that the Jews were not 
guilty in putting him to death ! Mr F., did the Jews actually put 
God to death ? You say in the above, that had he been ' a good 
and honest man,' he would have prevented the Jews from being 
thus guilty — or from putting him to death. Mr F., could ' a good 
and honest ' God, with any better grace allow the Jews to put the 
Supreme God to death ? 

But you and the Jews say that Jesus claimed the high charac- 
ter of being equal with, and that he was God ; and if this was not 
his true character he was guilty of blasphemy, and deserved 
death. If this was a mistake in the Jews you think, one word 
from the lips of Jesus would have corrected it. Perhaps the; 
reader will find more than one word in what Jesus did say which 
would correct the mistake in any but the willfully blind. See 
John x, 29-36, inclusive. 4 My Father, which gave them me* 
is greater than all : and none is able to pluck them out of my 
Father's hand. I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took 
up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good 
works have I showed you from my Father; for which of tkose 
works do ye stone me ? The Jews answered him, saying, For 
a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because 
that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered 
them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods ? If he 
called them gods unto whom the word of God came, and the 
scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him, whom the Father 
hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest ; be- 
cause I said, I am the Son of God ? ' Jesus here speaks repeat- 
edly of his Father—that he was sanctified and sent into the world 
by his Father ; yet the Jews accused him of blasphemy, because 
he said he was the Son of God. He meant no more than this : 
He said to them in plain language — My Father is greater than 
all. 5 Yet the Jews and you will have it that he meant to be un- 
derstood that he was equal with God, and was God. The Jews 



19 



put a false construction upon the Saviour's words ; and he labor- 
ed to show them that they did so. They put this construction, 
because they wished to fix on him the charge of blasphemy. 
You adopt the same construction, for the sake of proving the 
Trinity, and think if the construction be not correct, Jesus was a 
blasphemer, and the Jews were not guilty in putting him to death ! 

The reader, may rest assured that the writer of this, is unwil- 
ling to go to the murderous enemies of our blessed Lord, to get 
their explanation of his words, as the foundation of Christian doc- 
trines. 

On p. 13, you bring two or three passages which represent Je- 
sus to have been a judge. You seem to think he could not have 
sustained this office had he not been the infinite Deity. Why you 
should think so, we are unable to conceive. How he came by 
that office, the following testimony will show : 4 For the Father 
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.' 1 
Again — 1 For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given 
to the Son to have life in himself, and hath given him authority to 
execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.' 2 In these 
passages the words, committed, and given, are totally without mean- 
ing, if Jesus be the Supreme God. His life, and his authority to 
execute judgment, were given him, ' because he is the Son of Man.' 
Of course, he possessed, neither this life, nor this authority, until 
they were given him. Paul says that 6 God will judge the world 
in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained.' 3 Here 
the man Christ Jesus is represented as the instrument by which 
God judges the world, therefore, God committed all judgment to 
the Son. Persue this subject to any length you please, and in- 
stead of proving, it opposes, the Deity of Christ — and shows that 
he exercised no more than delegated authority. 

You produce instances, in which men have prayed to Jesus, as 
evidence of his proper Divinity. The instance of this kind, upon 
which you most rely, and have mentioned several times in your 
sermon, is the prayer of the dying Stephen, in which he said : 



J John v, 22. 



2 Verses 26, 27. 3 Acts xvii, 31. 



20 



1 Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' If this were worshipping Jesus, 
then we worship every being of whom we earnestly ask a favor. 
Stephen knew that Jesus was the way, the truth and the life — that 
no man could come to the Father, but by him ; to him, therefore, 
he prudently commended his spirit, as to that friend, who is at the 
right hand of God, making intercession for transgressors. Ten 
thousand prayers, offered to him, in his subordinate capacity, would 
not amount to Divine ivorship. 

You say on p. 15, — ' We are not ignorant of the fact, that the 
word worship, is sometimes used in an inferior sense, and when 
nothing more is intended than the respect and obesience which is 
often rendered by one creature to another.' This is a candid con- 
fession. Hence you must perceive, that it devolves on you to prove 
that any higher worship was ever given to Jesus. When it is said, 
4 Let all the angels of God worship him,' both him and the angels, 
or messengers, we regard as created beings, and the worship re- 
quired, ' nothing more than the respect and obeisance which is of- 
ten rendered by one creature to another.' 

On pp. 16, 17, your object strongly to the idea, that Om- 
nipotence, Omniscience, the names^and works of God, can be del- 
egated. To this we do not pretend. We believe the Lord Je- 
sus when he says, that of himself he could do nothing, and that 
there were some things which were not known to the Son, but to 
God only. When power is ascribed to him, we are to understand 
it as we do the language of Paul, when he says he can do all things, 
if strengthened through Christ. 1 When knowledge is ascribed to 
him, we are no more to suppose it implies strictly, Omnicience, 
than that Omniscience is intended when Paul says, that his breth- 
ren are filled with all knowledge. If such language means Omnip- 
otence, and Omnicience, the scriptures present us with many be- 
ings possessed of these attributes. 

Why the names of God cannot be delegated, 1 know not. Two 
beings of different characters, for ought that I cau perceive, may 
have the same name, without making them, identically, the same 
being. Supposing we allow that Jesus is called God, this appellation 



1 Phil, iv, 13. 



21 



would not prove his divinity, or men have received the same title* 
We will own that it is said to Jesus, — ' Thy throne, O God, is for- 
ever and ever.' 1 But this tile is explained in the next verse : 
' Therefore, God, even ray God, hath anointed thee with the oil 
of gladness above thy fellows.' If we allow this translation which 
some of the learned tave disputed, it proves that the Son, though 
called God, had a God, whc aiointed him — he had fellows, and 
was above them, because he vas anointed by his God above them. 

The truth respecting Jesu is so clearly stated in the following, 
we should think mistakes mpossible : ' For he whom God hath 
sent speaketh the words of joi : for he giveth not the spirit by 
measure unto him.' 2 Agaii — ' Therefore, in all things it became 
him to be made like unto Is Brethren.' 3 This declares that Je- 
sus had brethren, that he /as made, and made in all things like 
them — but they had the Sfri. by measure, — to him it was given 
without measure. Is not tls proof positive that Jesus was depen- 
dent for his life, and exaltlkjn, on a high Maker, and Almighty 
Giver ? 

We should recollect the positive manner in which it is said of 
Christians, that they posses all things, know all things, and can 
do all things. But this do6 not make them Deities. You seem 
to think Jesus must be the Supreme Deity because he said— 4 All 
men should honor the Son,e\en as they honor the Father.' Will 
not our readers be led t> suspect you intended to pervert the 
meaning of this passage, br leaving out the next words following 
it : ' He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which 
hath sent him.' 4 Jesus, here assigns a good reason, why they 
should honor him — not becauje he was the eternal God, but be- 
cause he was sent by the Father ; hence, honoring him was hon- 
oring the power under which Ije served. If they honored not the 
Son, they disrespected the aower, which it was his privilege to 
represent. 

The passage on p. 18, which you quote from Revelation, we 
consider wrongly applied. Here it is. ' I am Alpha and Omega, 
the beginning and ending, vhich is, which was, and which is to 



1 Heb. i, 8 5 9, 2 John iii, 34. 3 Heb. ii, 17. * John v, 2, 3, 



22 

come, the Almighty.' 1 In this vefse the Almighty speaks of ' 
himself, and 1 can perceive no authority for supposing Jesus is 
here intended, by the Almighty. Tie context is against the con- 
clusion. 

You place much dependence )n these words, — ' Verily, verily 
I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.' Should it be al- 
lowed that Jesus existed before Abraham, as you contend, this 
would not prove his Divinity, for kher beings existed before 
Abraham, whom you would be inwlling to acknowledge divine. 
You say that, 1 am, was a name peuliar to Jehovah, and you 
think the Jews, thus understood its neaning, in this place. If 
they mistook his meaning, had Jesu been honest, you say, he 
would have corrected their mistake. Here again, you join with 
the Jews, and would charge Jesus wih dishonesty, if he did not 
mean, by his language, what you vishtrim to mean. Friend F., 
I dislike to find you so often on the sije of our Lord's enemies — 
it will make an unfavorable impressia on the public opinion. 
If we suppose, / am, in this passage, neans Jehovah, we will use 
Jehovah, in its place. The passage hen reads, — 'Before Abra- 
ham was, Jehovah.' The passage i nonsense. Will you say 
that the word, was, should be added? Be it so — and of course, 
we do not deny that Jehovah was bfore Abraham. Wakefield 
supposes that he, should be addec fter, 1 am, and that Jesus, 
simply meant that his mission was ienrmined and certain before 
the birth of Abraham. If you object 1o this construction, I think 
you will find it difficult to gain om with which you will be satis- 
fied. 

I shall not notice all the texts whch you have quoted, as the pa- 
tience of the reader would be exhauited before we could get through 
the review of passages, which have no force in the controversy — 
and as you will not complain that I have neglected any of the 
essential evidence, on which you defend. I presume you have 
long since been convinced that it is easier quoting texts of scrip- 
ture, than proving the application of tjem correct. And are you 



1 Rev. i, 8. 



not fearful that your careful readers will accuse you, of gross man- 
agement, to make ycur evidence appear abundant and convincing ? 
Will they not say that you have divided and subdivided passages, 
inserting their parts in different places, so as to make them ap- 
pear like separate pssages — quoting some several times — mang- 
ling others — leaving out parts — and misquoting other parts; ad- 
ding — omitting, and altering, so as to make them apply to your 
subject. I really cold wish that, you had not laid yourself open 
to such an unpleasait charge — lut if you look over your sermon, 
Seriously and attentiely, you wil| perceive that the charge could be 
sustained, in all its i>rce. But as you said in your other sermon, 
that the very best oj men retain sad remains of the corrupt na- 
ture, I set all these hings to the credit of those sad remains, and 
get over them in thi charitable way — and I could hope that oth- 
ers might do the sane. But w? will proceed with the review. 

On p. 19, you sa) — ' Our Lord put this question to the Phari- 
sees,' " What think ye of Christ ? whose Son is he ?" ' They say/ 
unto him, £ The son of I'avid.' Now mark his reply, ' How then 
doth David in spirit cal him Lord ? ' and ' if David call him 
Lord, how is he his Soi °l ' This question they could not an- 
swer ; and Matthew inbrms us that they were so baffled by it 
that they dare not askhm any more questions. Those who de- 
ny our Lord's proper Duty, must, one would think, be as much, 
baffled by the question as were the Pharisees of old.' Sir, 
there is one thing iiere which baffles us much more than the 
question — the manner in which you quote the Lords reply ! You 
have carefully omitted tint part which was opposed to the con- 
struction which you wihed to give it. This is the reply. * How 
then doth David in spiit call him Lord, saying, ' The Lord said 
unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine ene- 
mies thy footstool ? If David then call him Lord, how is he his 
Son ? ' You quoted only what is here kdicised, and omitted that 
which represents David's Lord as having i Lord — and being sub- 
ject to another Lord, who commanded him to sit on his right 
hand. How can this be accounted for, if David's Lord was the 
Supreme Deity ? What David says in regard to his Lord, so far 
as Christ is concerned, we consider as having been said in the 



24 



spirit of prophecy. ' David in sprit called him Lord.' If David 
had had an hundred Lords, the fejpreme Jeh»vab, would be God 
over all. 

We come to p. 20. The pasiage, upon yhich you here ap- 
pear to fix the most importance, xs this : ' Co ye, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them in the nmie of the father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Tou think 'he indignity would 
have been infinite,' to use the narae of the Son, in this connex- 
ion, unless he was Supremely Drine. NowSir, what indignity 
can there be in naming a creature in connexia with his Creator ? 
or this Son with his Father ? If this be indigrty, why is it not as 
great indignity to use the name of God, at all, n baptizing a crea- 
ture infinitely beneath him ? To use your )wn similitude the 
indignity would be greater than to baptize ' th< meanest insect' in 
i the name of the brightest philosopher that evr lived.' Why you 
should manifest any scruples in this case. I mi utterly unable to 
concieve, when you hesitate not to say, that God has two natures, 
a human and a divine. If you are bold enough to load the Su- 
preme God with a human nature, we srouk suppose you would 
not be very fond of saying much abouf incigriity. You would 
have us to believe that there is an infinie dsproportion between 
human and divine nature, yet you brinj tfiem both together in 
one God. 

On p. 22, you say — Who among u denies that Christ is a 
man ! We believe this just as firmly a k < our opponents. It is a 
fundamental article in our creed.' Yet yoi say, he had ( a di- 
vine nature in union with the human. 7 Yoi say, ' This brings us 
to the very point on which the whole conroversy turns.' Then 
let us direct our attentioij to this point, lou believe that Jesus 
was a man. This belief is a fundamental article in your creed. 
You readily grant that there are many massages which represent 
him to be inferior to the Father. If he was a man, and inferior 
to the Father, you must) acknowledge that he was created. Hu- 
man nature, you would hat contend, is self-existent. The man 
Christ Jesus did possess a human nature, and was created. This 
you would not dispute; (but you contend that he was united with 
the divine nature, and [hat union made him the Supreme God. 



25 



Well, now look at what you say on p. 20. You there say 
that the distance between God and a creature ' is infinite,' and to 
unite their names 4 the indignity would be infinite tooS Shall I 
not then say, as Nathan did to David : £ Thou art the man.' 
Do you not unite the name of inferior man with the Supreme 
God, and Supremely Divine nature, with weak, dependent, created 
human nature, and tell us that they are so bound together as to 
make only one God. You call this an 4 incomprehensible union.' 
Would it not be better for you to prove the union, before you 
talk about its being incomprehensible ? You contend that be- 
tween man and God, or between human and divine nature, there 
is an infinite distance, and to 'join 9 even * the name' of the one 
with that of the other, is an infinite indignity. As this is the 
point on which, you say, the whole controversy turns, I leave it 
with you to prove an union between things infinitely apart, and to 
dispose of the infinite indignity of such a work. 

You acknowledge on p. 22, that there are many passages which 
represent Jesus to be inferior to the Father; we, therefore, need 
not quote them. You have quoted several passages, and without 
doubt the best you could find, to prove his Deity, but we think, 
your evidence insufficient. We should hesitate very much to sur- 
render the clear testimony of the Bible, to a few passages, of doubt- 
ful meaning, in any case ; especially, where reason must be laid 
aside. You would have us believe that the Trinity, is a doctrine 
above reason, but not contrary to it. But is it not contrary to 
reason, when we are informed that God and his Son converse with 
each other, love each other, and perform different acts, to suppose 
that they make only one being ? Can we not as easily believe 
that all the persons in the universe, make but one being ? If Je- 
sus be God, then God was born of a woman, and was put to death 
by the hands of wicked men. If he was a part of God, then part 
of God was imperfect, was bom of Mary, wept, and groaned in 
spirit, and died on the cross. At that sad moment, a deep wound 
was inflicted on the Godhead — and only a part of a God existed 
to carry on the affairs of the universe. Is this reasonable ? You 
believe that Jesus died to procure our infinite satisfaction. Ac- 
cording to this, part of God died, to satisfy the other part. Is this 
4 



26 



above, or contrary to reason ? But I recollect that you said in 
your other sermon,* when speaking on this subject, (that is, in fa- 
vor of the Trinity) — 4 all our reasoning concerning it, is mere 
speculation or vain philosophy.' Still you have devoted a whole 
sermon in support of this subject! When we reason that Jesus 
was a separate being from his Father, we can reason without 
speculating — and philosophize without using vain philosophy. 

You say on p. 28, if the Trinity ' be not the true doctrine, the 
conclusion is irresistibly forced upon us that the scriptures were 
written with a design to deceive.' We differ from you, and can 
see no deception in the scriptures unless your doctrine be true. 
We can reconcile the few passages which you bring to support 
Christ's Deity, with the idea of his humanity — but you cannot rec- 
oncile the hundreds which speak of his humanity, with the idea of 
his Deity. The only way in which you attempt to get over this 
difficulty is by asserting that he had two natures ; but when called 
on to reconcile the union of these natures in one beings you veil 
the whole subject in mystery. You pretend that God has reveal- 
ed this doctrine — and still it is shrouded in mystery. But clothe 
any absurdity in this convenient attire, and it would be equally 
worthy our credit. 

We wish people would remember how often Jesus spake of his 
Father. The word was forever on his lips. He never meant 
himself by it. Through the whole New Testament a distinction is 
kept up between his and his Father's name. Is not all this cal- 
culated to deceive, if he were the very God ? His humble birth 
and circumstances, his human form, his earthly sufferings, were 
all calculated to stamp on the mind of men a deep sense of his 
inferiority to God. If he be not inferior, would not the sacred 
volume be filled with positive evidence, so clear, as to prevent all 
possibility of mistake on the subject. But we hesitate not to say 
that there are only four or five passages which can be urged, with 
any degree of grace, in favor of the Trinity — hundreds may .be 
quoted, but they weigh nothing in the controversy. 



* This sermon was on the essential doctrines of the gospel, and has lately been 
reviewed by the writer of this, in the Trumpet and Universalist Magazine. 



27 



We are accused of demeaning the mission of Jesus — but the 
charge is totally unfounded. We regard him a real and entire 
sacrifice. He groaned in spirit and agonized in body. When he 
wept in the garden of Gethsemane, forsaken by all, we do not be- 
lieve, that at the same time, he had a divine nature infinitely un- 
touched by suffering. We do not believe, that while he hung on 
the cross, dying amidst the insults of an ungodly mob, that he was 
the happiest of all the universe, being the very God. No — we 
believe that the whole of Jesus suffered — that an affecting reality 
rested on his afflicted hours, and our whole souls are arrested when 
we review his eventful life, and the magnanimous spirit which 
urged him on, through agonies and death, to lay the foundation 
of man's redemption from sin and mortality, both deep and sure. 

It is true, we do not believe that his sufferings were infinite, be- 
cause he was not infinite. Had he been infinite, we cannot con- 
ceive that infinity could suffer ; but could infinity suffer, we know 
not that its sufferings were ever needed. Jesus did not suffer to 
appease divine justice, for the good reason, divine justice was never 
angry. We would never forget that God is just, but his justice is 
that of a good being, and is in perfect harmony with infinite be- 
nevolence. God is supremely good, benevolent, and kind ; good 
in design, as well as act ; good to all — perfectly good to all his 
works, as well as to every individual. No sufferings — no death, 
can either increase or diminish his justice and mercy. 

Could this be understood, we think the idea of the Trinity would 
be given up ; for those who urge it, believe man owes to God an 
infinite satisfaction, because he is infinitely guilty ; and being un- 
able to make this satisfaction, Jesus, being the infinite God, procures 
this satisfaction for man, through his death ; and man is liberated 
from his great debt. One part of God died, and that death satis- 
fied the infinite dissatisfaction of the other part. 

Have we accused Trinitarians of being idolaters ? Why is not 
the charge sustained ? Why is it not as much idolatry to wor- 
ship a tri-personal God with two natures, as it is the heathen idol 
which has three heads and one body ? We do aver that the scrip- 
tures are equally silent about both. We must believe that to 
£ worship the Father in spirit and truth,' he must be worshipped as 



28 



one undivided and all-perfect Being. Then, we can hold with 
Him, free and pleasurable communion, through his highly exalted 
Agent, the Lord Jet>us. But divide the Godhead — talk about tri- 
personality, and two natures in one God, and you divide our 
thoughts, perplex our minds, and distract our worship. 

If our Trinitarian brethren simply meant by the Divinity of 
Christ, that he had a divine commission — was divinely instructed — 
that his affections, feelings and disposition, were in conformity to 
the Father's — that he was one with the Father in principle, we 
should agree with them. John says, that ' he that dwelleth in love 
dwelleth in God, and God in him.' 1 This union, we believe, ex- 
ists between the Father and his Son. And the love of God, in 
which the Lord Jesus dwells, and which dwells in him (and not 
the Trinity,) 4 is the very sun and centre of the christian system, 
around which all its parts revolve in perfect harmony, and from 
which they all derive light, and life, and influence.' ^ And this 
sun will remain to shed its benign influence on the redeemed 
world of God, long after the ghostly fabric of superstition shall 
have crumbled to the dust, and the things, which cannot not abide 
the test of free inquiry, enlightened reason, and clear scriptural 
interpretation, shall have vanished away. 

I have now done with the main subject of your discourse — a 
few only of your concluding remarks remain to be noticed. 

On p. 25, you somewhat boast of the great number of Trinita- 
rians, many of whom, you say, are truly wise and learned — but you 
say, ( they think it no disgrace to lay all their scientific honors at the 
feet of Jesus, and to subject their reason to the authority of Reve- 
lation.' Is it not possible, dear sir, these men have surrendered 
their scientific honors and reason to powers less worthy than 
those which you name ? Have there not been many learned 
and wise men in the world, who have never professed Christianity un- 
der any of its forms, but have laid their scientific honors and reason 
at the feet of idols ? Sir, I imagine that truth requires no surren- 
der of scientific honors, and no subjection of reason, but elevates 
them both. 



J John iv, 16. » See Sermon, p. SO. 



29 



You correctly observe ; ' That men who first form a system of 
religion to suit themselves, and then endeavor to support it by an 
appeal to the scriptures, — that such should understand the Bible 
falsely, is not to be wondered at.' What surety have we, that 
this has not been the case with leading Trinitarians ? 

You have made a considerable mistake in regard to the number 
of congregations, in the United States, which reject the Divinity 
of Christ. You estimate the whole number to be about three hun- 
dred. But, Sir, the number of Universalists alone, very much 
exceeds your calculations ; and besides them and the Unitarians, 
there are several denominations who reject your Trinitarian views. 
Their number is rapidly increasing. 

You tell your brethren on p. 31, that Jesus 1 became obedient 
unto death, even the death of the cross, that they might be saved 
from eternal death? But I am surprised you should make a state- 
ment so entirely destitute of authority. You have alluded to a pas- 
sage found in Phil. 2 : and no one, we think, can read from the 
sixth to the eleventh verse, without discovering a refutation, both 
of the Trinitarian doctrine and that of eternal death. It may not 
be improper here to remind you of what we have often told your 
brethren, and which we know to be true, — that the phrase eternal 
death is wholly an anti-scriptural phrase, and opposed to that sa- 
cred testimony which declares a period, when 6 there shall be no 
more death? 

Why could you talk about eternal death, when, on p. 33, you 
tell your brethren that they 1 must wish and pray for the salvation 
of all men, even of those who most hate and vilify the truth.' Did 
you not, also, mean that they should e pray without wrath and 
doubting,' as Paul directs ? But how could they do this, if they be- 
lieve in the eternal death of some men ? If you and your brethren 
pray in faith for the salvation of all men, the words, eternal death, 
should be blotted from your creed ; and you should fearlessly con- 
fess yourselves Universalists. 

May the importance of religion be duly realized by us both, reg- 
ulating our conduct by perfect rules, and fixing our hopes upon 
an imperishable foundation. We would glory in God as the Rock 
of ages, and the immutable Friend of man. We would rejoice 



30 



in his Son as an accomplished, and exalted Agent, by which the 
One Eternal executes his plans of infinite mercy. On the one hand, 
we would guard against the dangerous rocks of infidelity — on the 
other, against the more dangerous whirlpools of superstition. 

Inquiry is abroad in the land. It is bold and fearless in its in- 
vestigations. Everv sentiment must be brought into judgment be- 
fore the bar of public opinion, there to stand approved or condemn- 
ed. The curtain of mystery, which has been hung around cer- 
tain doctrines, will be torn asunder — and enlightened man will 
not so much dishonor his God, as to credit his word with an un- 
intelligible religion. 

Yours respectfully, 

Ben j. Whittemore. 



NOTE. 



The author would here append a few remarks, omitted in the 
foregoing pages. Mr F. has intimated several times that Jesus 
must be the proper Deity, because he is called Jehovah. We are 
not convinced that the scriptures ever give him this name. If it 
be the incommunicable name of God, it could not have been com- 
municated to his Son. If it could have been communicated, the 
manner in which the ancients gave names to individuals, in which 
the name of God is implied, will show that those who have borne 
such names are not to be regarded as Deities. Elijah, means God 
the Lord ; Elisha, God that saves ; Ishmael, God who bears ; Lena- 
uel, God with them. Who would contend that all those who 
have borne these names are supreme Gods ? If Jesus was call- 
ed Jehovah, how does it prove that he was more divine, than was 
that individual called Lemuel ? 

The doctrine of God's unity is no less ancient than Christianity 
itself. We can trace its origin down to the earliest period of the 
christian age. But the doctrine of the Trinity was established in 
the fourth century ; an age distinguished for its barbarity — when 
cruelties were freely allowed, and death in its most cruel forms was 
executed on those whose spirits were sufficiently bold to depart 
from the orthodox belief. In that age it was considered justifi- 
able to lie for religion, and for the reason, we presume, that 
falsehood was the most congenial to the spirit of the religion 
which then prevailed. 

Trinitarians have most unkindly used those who have dissented 
from them in opinion. Though the persecuting arm is now stay- 



32 



ed by the civil authorities — it is not so with the persecuting tongue 
and pen. Infidels, is the mildest name by which they call those 
who reject the Trinity. In other times, tortures and death have 
been the penalty of departing from their faith. Tyscovicious, a 
wealthy merchant, because he would not swear by their tri-person- 
al God, was condemned to have his tongue pierced — his feet cut 
off, — theu to be beheaded, and finally to have his body burned 
at the stake. The sentence was cruelly put in execution. Un- 
der the instigation of Calvin, Servetus was burned alive, for de- 
parting from the faith of his Trinitarian enemy. Joan of Kent 
and Van Paris, for the like offence, were led to the like death by 
the decree of Edward VI.— who was forced to comply with the 
demand of the mad and furious bishops. Two Englishmen and 
one Spaniard, for the wonderful crime of rejecting the Trinity, 
were sentenced to be burned alive by the brutal James, who man- 
ifested pleasure in setting his hand to the death warrant. The An- 
abaptists were exiled their country for not being Trinitarians. 
Whether similar cruelties would now be put in execution, if our 
opposers held the reins of government, we will not say, but leave 
the question with a discerning public, and the lovers of liberty. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

0 022 010 505 2 




Hollinger Corp. 
P H 8.5 



mSSSSLST EGRESS 



0 022 010 £g"f " 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



